lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 14:54:12 -0800 From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com> To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cisco tree with the vfs tree On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 09:33:30AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 16:29:23 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the cisco tree got a conflict in: > > > > arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > > > > between commit: > > > > dcf8001d292b ("vfs: Suppress MS_* flag defs within the kernel unless explicitly enabled") > > > > from the vfs tree and commit: > > > > 2c070709ea75 ("This updates the x86 code to use the CONFIG_GENERIC_CMDLINE") > > > > from the cisco tree. > > > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This > > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial > > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree > > is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating > > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly > > complex conflicts. > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > Stephen Rothwell > > > > diff --cc arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > > index e493202bf265,ee109f490b22..000000000000 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > > @@@ -51,7 -51,7 +51,8 @@@ > > #include <linux/kvm_para.h> > > #include <linux/dma-contiguous.h> > > #include <xen/xen.h> > > +#include <uapi/linux/mount.h> > > + #include <linux/cmdline.h> > > > > #include <linux/errno.h> > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > This is now a conflict between the cicso tree and Linus' tree. I did a rebase after your original made this. I'm not sure it's needed any longer. However, I was planning to rebase my tree again on top of the latest Linus tree. How would you like to proceed ? Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists